Skip to content

/ rust-url

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update uuid. #183

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 4, 2016
Merged

Update uuid. #183

merged 1 commit into from Apr 4, 2016

Conversation

@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

Ms2ger commented Apr 4, 2016

This change is Reviewable
@Ms2ger
Update uuid.
Loading status checks…
dedf27a
@SimonSapin
Copy link
Member

SimonSapin commented Apr 4, 2016

@bors-servo r+
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 4, 2016

📌 Commit dedf27a has been approved by SimonSapin
bors-servo added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2016
@bors-servo
Auto merge of #183 - servo:uuid, r=SimonSapin
Loading status checks…
880d4be 
Update uuid.

<!-- Reviewable:start -->
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="35" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/rust-url/183)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 4, 2016

⌛ Testing commit dedf27a with merge 880d4be...
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Apr 4, 2016

☀️ Test successful - travis
@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit dedf27a into master Apr 4, 2016
4 of 5 checks passed
4 of 5 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr Waiting for AppVeyor build to complete
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/branch AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@Ms2ger Ms2ger deleted the uuid branch Apr 4, 2016
@Ryman
Copy link

Ryman commented Apr 10, 2016

FWIW, this now requires a later version of rust then previously (now requires >1.6) due to uuid 2.0 having no_std support, so I think bumping to 0.6 might have been nicer here.
@SimonSapin
Copy link
Member

SimonSapin commented Apr 10, 2016

Is there a reason to use older versions of Rust?

FWIW with #176 this crate will require Rust 1.7+.
@Ryman
Copy link

Ryman commented Apr 10, 2016

Personally, I don't mind using latest stable, but I think it affects users who may only want to use a packaged version, or have an OS which isn't tier1 and has slower releases or something? It likely has more problems for end-users compiling from source than for developers of the library itself.

I'm not entirely sure what the community consensus on this is but it is a kind of breaking change, so some kind of signalling, via either version bump or opt-in feature, would be neat imo.

Requiring 1.7 for the 1.0 bump (#176) would be totally fine as it wouldn't break dependent crates unexpectedly, i.e. they have to opt in to Cargo letting them move from 0.6 -> 1.0 (unless they use *).
@SimonSapin
Copy link
Member

SimonSapin commented Apr 10, 2016

Alright, let’s reconsider this if it becomes more than hypothetical.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
@Ms2ger @SimonSapin @bors-servo @Ryman
You can’t perform that action at this time.